<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (3) TMI 913 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157230</link>
    <description>A false statement qualifies as corrupt practice under Section 123(4) only if it is a statement of fact relating to the candidate&#039;s personal character or conduct, and it must be strictly proved like a criminal charge. The pamphlet referred to a member of the candidate&#039;s personal staff who was alleged to have attempted murder and to be absconding, but it did not expressly or by necessary implication impute that conduct to the candidate. Read as a whole, it did not make a false accusation against the candidate, and the plea of innuendo failed because the necessary extrinsic facts were neither clearly pleaded nor proved. The election could not therefore be invalidated on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 913 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157230</link>
      <description>A false statement qualifies as corrupt practice under Section 123(4) only if it is a statement of fact relating to the candidate&#039;s personal character or conduct, and it must be strictly proved like a criminal charge. The pamphlet referred to a member of the candidate&#039;s personal staff who was alleged to have attempted murder and to be absconding, but it did not expressly or by necessary implication impute that conduct to the candidate. Read as a whole, it did not make a false accusation against the candidate, and the plea of innuendo failed because the necessary extrinsic facts were neither clearly pleaded nor proved. The election could not therefore be invalidated on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>